商标案件中在先著作权的权属认定

发布时间：2018-08-23 10:53

【摘要】：在商标授权案件和商标确权案件中常常涉及到在先著作权权属认定,但是至今仍未形成统一的裁判标准。针对商标案件中在先著作权的权属认定问题,其争议点大多集中在商标注册证和著作权登记证明对在先著作权权属认定的证明效力,以及举证责任的证明标准。“同案不同判”的时常发生。本文拟对此问题的典型案例进行对比分析,进而指出上述争议点在我国实践中的分歧之处,然后找出分歧的症结之处,最后进行理论分析,希望能够厘清商标案件中在先著作权权属认定的裁判标准,以期能为我国司法实践提供一些参考之处。第一章主要通过对商标确权案件和商标授权案件中涉及到在先著作权权属认定的典型案例进行对比分析,将相关案例的判决要旨进行总结梳理。总结出商评委和法院对商标注册证和著作权登记证明的证明效力,以及举证责任的证明标准存在分歧之处,进而导致“同案不同判”的情况。通过案例分析可以发现,现阶段,我国实践中对于商标案件中在先著作权权属认定的分歧点主要在于:1.单独的商标注册证的证明效力。有的机关认为商标注册证具有证明著作权权属的效力,但是有的机关认为商标注册证的署名并非著作权法意义上的署名,不具有著作权权属的证明效力。2.在先商标注册证和在后著作权登记证明的效力。有的机关认为如果登记时间晚于争议或者异议商标的著作权登记证明上记载的作品创作时间早于异议或者争议商标,结合在先商标注册证的时间证明,则完成了对在先著作权的初步举证责任,在没有相反证据的情况下就可以推定享有在先著作权。有的机关认为在先商标注册证和在后著作权登记证明已经完成充分的举证责任,可以直接证明在先著作权权属。有的机关否认在先商标注册证和在后著作权登记证明结合后对在先著作权权属的证明效力。3.举证责任的证明标准。有的机关认为商标案件中在先著作权的权属认定的举证责任的证明标准不宜太高,只需到达到高度盖然性标准即可。但是有的机关认为鉴于商标案件的特殊性,需要提高举证责任的证明标准,即需要达到确实充分的程度,否则将架空《商标法》的立法体系。第二章主要针对商标案件中在先著作权权属认定的分歧原因进行系统地分析,首先概括地总结了商标案件中在先著作权权属认定产生分歧的根本原因是因为立法不明确。然后,分别详细地介绍了商标案件中在先著作权权属认定的直接原因,即商标注册证和著作权登记证明对在先著作权权属认定的证明效力有待明确,以及举证责任的证明标准有待明确。第三章针对商标案件中的在先著作权权属认定提出了一系列解决建议。第一,法院应出台司法解释:1.明确商标注册证的证明效力,首先,商标注册证上的署名并非著作权法意义上的署名,不具有证明著作权权属的效力;其次,商标注册证上的注册时间可以作为著作权权属的在先性的证据。2.明确举证责任的证明标准。商标案件中在先著作权权属的认定不宜采取过于严格的证明标准,只需要高度盖然性的程度即可。第二,在没有相关明确立法规定的情况下,应先发布指导性案例,以供商标评审委员会和相关法院参考。第三,加强对人员执法和司法人员的监督。鉴于举证责任的证明标准的判定是由审判人员根据举证责任的证明标准在内心形成的内心确信,而在形成内心确信的过程中是具有一定的主观性。因此,加强对执法人员和司法人员的监督,在约束执法人员和司法人员权力的同时,尽量提升上述人员的职业化和独立化。进而,是执法人员和司法人员的裁判更加公正合理。本文结论与现有结论的最大不同之处在于:1.笔者认为,商标案件中在先著作权权属认定的关键在于事实认定,而事实认定的关键在于证据问题,而证据问题的关键在于证据的证明力和证明标准的确定,因此,明确证据的证明力和证明标准,将直接有效地解决商标案件中在先著作权的权属认定;2.笔者认为,谈论商标注册证对在先著作权权属的证明效力时,不能笼统的一概而论,应该分别从商标注册证的不同角度谈论,即商标注册证的署名和注册时间;3.笔者认为,在后著作权登记证明对在先著作权的证明效力是明确的,并不是商标案件中在先著作权权属认定产生分歧的原因之一,真正原因是举证责任的证明标准不统一;4.笔者认为,针对商标案件中的在先著作权认定而言,在行政程序和行政诉讼程序中的证明标准应采取高度盖然性的证明标准。在商标案件中在先著作权的权属认定中,判定证明标准的过程需要依靠内心确信,而内心确信的形成具有主观性和不确定性,因此需要通过加强监督来维护裁判结果的公平合理。
[Abstract]:In trademark authorization cases and trademark confirmation cases, the determination of prior copyright ownership is often involved, but there is still no uniform standard of adjudication. "Different judgments in the same case" often occurs. This paper intends to make a comparative analysis of the typical cases of this issue, and then points out the differences in the above-mentioned controversial points in China's practice, and then finds out the crux of the differences, and finally makes a theoretical analysis, hoping to clarify the trademark cases in the previous works. The first chapter mainly analyzes the typical cases of trademark confirmation and trademark authorization, and summarizes the gist of the judgment of relevant cases. There are differences in the validity of trademark registration certificate and copyright registration certificate, as well as the standard of proof of the burden of proof, which leads to the situation of "different judgments in the same case". Some authorities believe that the trademark registration certificate has the validity to prove the copyright ownership, but others believe that the signature of the trademark registration certificate is not the signature of the copyright law, and does not have the validity to prove the copyright ownership. 2. The validity of the trademark registration certificate before and the copyright registration certificate after. If the registration time is later than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed or dissident trademark or the creation time of the disputed trademark is earlier than that recorded on the copyright registration certificate of the disputed trademark or the disputed trademark, combined with the time certificate of the prior trademark registration, the preliminary burden of proof of the prior copyright is fulfilled, and the prior work can be presumed to enjoy without the contrary evidence. Some authorities believe that the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate have completed the full burden of proof, and can directly prove the prior copyright ownership. Others deny the effectiveness of the prior trademark registration certificate and the subsequent copyright registration certificate combined to prove the prior copyright ownership. 3. The standard of proof of the burden of proof. The authorities believe that the standard of proof of the burden of proof in the affirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases should not be too high, just to reach the high probability standard. Chapter 2 mainly analyzes the reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases. First, it summarizes the basic reasons for the divergence in the determination of prior copyright ownership in trademark cases because the legislation is not clear. Then, it introduces the prior works in trademark cases in detail. The direct reason for the affirmation of copyright ownership is that the validity of the trademark registration certificate and the copyright registration certificate to the affirmation of prior copyright ownership needs to be clarified, and the standard of proof of the burden of proof needs to be clarified. To clarify the proof effect of a trademark registration certificate, first of all, the signature on the trademark registration certificate is not a signature in the sense of copyright law and does not have the effect of proving the ownership of copyright; secondly, the registration time on the trademark registration certificate can be used as proof of the prior ownership of copyright. 2. The standard of proof of the clear burden of proof. First, the determination of copyright ownership should not adopt too strict standards of proof, just a high degree of probability. Second, in the absence of relevant clear legislative provisions, guidance cases should be issued for reference by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Commission and relevant courts. Third, strengthen the supervision of law enforcement and judicial personnel. The judgment of the standard of proof of the burden of proof is the inner conviction formed by the judge according to the standard of proof of the burden of proof, and it has certain subjectivity in the process of forming the inner conviction. The conclusion of this paper is different from the existing conclusion: 1. The author believes that the key to the prior determination of copyright ownership in trademark cases lies in fact, while the key to the fact determination lies in evidence, and the evidence problem. The key lies in the confirmation of the proof power and standard of proof, therefore, defining the proof power and standard of proof will directly and effectively solve the confirmation of the ownership of prior copyright in trademark cases; 2. The author thinks that when discussing the proof effect of trademark registration certificate on the ownership of prior copyright, we can not generalize it, but should follow it separately. The author thinks that the proof effect of the certificate of post-copyright registration on the prior copyright is clear, not one of the reasons for the divergence in the determination of the prior copyright ownership in the trademark case, but the real reason is that the proof standard of the burden of proof is not uniform. 4. The author holds that the standard of proof in administrative and administrative proceedings should be highly probable for the determination of prior copyright in trademark cases. Therefore, we need to strengthen supervision to safeguard the fairness and rationality of the referee's results.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】